Lessons From Paper Clips

In the patent literature, the term "prior art" is virtually synonymous with "state of the art," the standard against which any claimed improvement is necessarily judged. Normally, "state of the art" implies the latest technology, and thus, what's considered the prior art tends to change over time.

There is a category of devices in which this seemingly self-evident fact does not hold true.

The paper clip is one of the simplest of useful things. In its most familiar embodiment, it's formed by making three bends in a four-inch length of wire to produce what has been described as a loop within a loop. Architects and product designers often place this inexpensive little object on top-10 lists of iconic designs, by which they mean things that have a certain aesthetic cachet.

To engineers, design depends more on function than on form. Whereas an architect or product designer may tend to hold in his or her mind an image of the paper clip as a pristine, silvery, metallic object photographed against a contrasting dark background, an engineer is more likely to imagine the thing in the functional context of holding together a sheaf of papers. In that configuration, it's not so much an object of aesthetic beauty than of functional cleverness.

The classic loop-within-a-loop paper clip is known as the Gem, after the late 19th-century stationery firm Gem Ltd., which first made and sold it. Because no patent was taken out on the innovative clip, other manufacturers of office products soon copied, marketed, and sold it.

But, as engineers and designers well know, no design is perfect. The Gem clip was known to have a number of shortcomings. In particular, its rough wire ends tend to scratch and tear paper. As a result, as early as the end of the 19th century, inventors began to come up with clever modifications for which patents were issued for improved functionality.

But if no design is perfect, then it follows that no derivative design is perfect. For every advantage embodied in a new paper clip design, there appeared to be an equal and opposite disadvantage. For example, one common solution to the problem of a wire end tearing paper was to form the end into a very tight eye. This certainly did work, but at a price: The tighter bending radius demanded the use of steel that was more resistant to cracking, which meant a more expensive raw material.

Thus, the Gem, for all of its real and perceived faults, remained the state of the art, and so the prior art against which all challengers were judged. This was true at the beginning of the 20th century, and it remained true at the beginning of the 21st, as hundreds of patents for improved paper clips attest. In other words, the Gem still represents a happy medium of design.

In part because it has held its exalted technological position for over a century, the Gem has become a challenge that many an inventor -- amateur and professional alike -- has taken up. The simplicity of the device entices inventors into thinking they can do what no one before them has done: Displace the Gem from its position of superiority in technological elegance, product design, and market share.

When these dreamers are not turning over a Gem in their fingers, contemplating its pluses and minuses, these proposers of new paper clips are devisers of medical devices, manufacturers of automotive wire products, and designers of office chairs. They have all shared the same ambition: To succeed where countless inventors before them have failed.

James, the best way to overcome patent restrictions is addressing the drawbacks or negative aspects of the patented design/product. This will help for obtaining a new patent, which is superior to the existing one. That can also brings more market values.

Rob, patenting the technology has both advantage and disadvantage. The advantage is patenting will help them for full right over the design or products, so misuse can be avoided and they will get royalty to use their products or designs. But at the same time it will restrict others to continue research in similar direction, they are forces to rethink or redirect their efforts to some other directions.

Roy Grumman used two paper clips and a drafting eraser to come up with the concept for the folding wings on the US Navy F4F Wildcat fighter during WW2...the eraser/paperclip model was on display in Bethpage Long Island at one time.

You must remember one foundational point about patents that is almost always misunderstood by the general public: Patents are a defense element to protect the core element; the core being, a profitable business model – in whatever business you may choose.

Too often, patent blogs and message boards are covered with people's inquiries and disappointment regarding developing, filing, processing, and actually getting patents. None of this makes you money, and on the contrary is extremely expensive.

The patent is to defend the money-making idea. Additionally, you can turn a defensive patent into an offensive element, by marketing it as a license to your potential competition. But its still a secondary tool (defensive or offensive) to the primary element – the profitable business plan.

All too often, people think getting a patent will make them rich. Trust me, NOT true. I have 23.

I use the Gem paper clip as an example of how advances in material science change how problems can be solved. It was the advances in wire making that made it possible to form the Gem at the time it was invented. Prior to that it was pins that were used. I for one don't believe we are any smarter than the inventors of the past. We just have a better portfolio of materials and a larger knowledge base to choose from. For the inventors of the Gem, they finally had a wire they could bend at a small enough radius to make their paper clip. I'm sure they didn't drive the material science, but they knew how to use it when it came.

I find the concept of creating a patent as a private citizen extremely daunting. The economics of performing a patent search and all the aspects of generating economic return on an unproven design are difficult. I can make a device to perform very intricate tasks using my normal iterative process and when I have the performance I want, I'll put it to work doing the job it was designed for and go on to the next task. Perhaps wrongly, I regard the application for and issuance of a patent as a luxury. I know some outstanding machinists, mechanics and electronics whizes, mechanical and electronic engineers who daily use potentially patentable devices who had they taken the time to patent, would have starved waiting for the process to work. Perhaps I'll create the next great thing and I'll meet the right person at the right time and have the money and good luck to find it's patentable and I'll get a patent to put on the wall and actually find someone with the capacity and capitol to risk making a bunch of them to sell. Or, I could continue making paper-clip-equivalents and hope for the best.

What's surprising to me is how inventors of the day were able to perfect the paper clip's performance with (what I assume) was so little knowledge of theoretical and applied mechanics and material science. Did the clip's inventors pay attention to characteristics such as strain hardening when they chose the material and the shape? Or to the elastic modulus or the flexural strength of the material? Or was the patent art based on seat-of-the-pants conclusions?

It's odd, no matter how new your idea is, there is probably prior art that is the same thing. I am dealing with this concept on a hand full of projects I am working on. But, as a friend of mine suggested, I am adding "patent defeating holes" to my designs. Features that will make it different from all the others in question. Underhanded, but what can I say... I want to see my ideas come to fruition.

Good point, Mydesign. It's interesting, though, to see the patent wars over smart phones and tablets. Patent owners in this territory have been able to win substantial gains by calling their competitors on technology theft. The wins have included both money and bans from selling the offending product in specific countries. These wars have given me a whole new respect for the value of a patent.

Industrial workplaces are governed by OSHA rules, but this isn’t to say that rules are always followed. While injuries happen on production floors for a variety of reasons, of the top 10 OSHA rules that are most often ignored in industrial settings, two directly involve machine design: lockout/tagout procedures (LO/TO) and machine guarding.

Load dump occurs when a discharged battery is disconnected while the alternator is generating current and other loads remain on the alternator circuit. If left alone, the electrical spikes and transients will be transmitted along the power line, leading to malfunctions in individual electronics/sensors or permanent damage to the vehicle’s electronic system. Bottom line: An uncontrolled load dump threatens the overall safety and reliability of the vehicle.

While many larger companies are still reluctant to rely on wireless networks to transmit important information in industrial settings, there is an increasing acceptance rate of the newer, more robust wireless options that are now available.

To those who have not stepped into additive manufacturing, get involved as soon as possible. This is for the benefit of your company. When the new innovations come out, you want to be ready to take advantage of them immediately, and that takes knowledge.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.